Arvind Narayanan's journal

A friend of mine says* he believes that people should have a right to a comfortable life even if they choose not to work. You already know I don't agree with that; in fact, I can't think of any other viewpoint that I disagree with more strongly. (I mean, sure, I might disagree with racism more, but then I don't think of it as a legitimate viewpoint and I don't respect people who advocate it.)

To me, choosing not to work is morally reprehensible. I was raised that way, and it's one of the things about my parents' belief system that I've chosen to keep. I don't advocate anything as extreme as denying emergency medical treatment to the wilfully unemployed, but I don't think they deserve any of the comforts of life at the expense of others. (If you're idle rich, I might find that unpleasant, but at least you're not a drain on society.)

If there were a technology that allowed us to put people in hibernation, wake them up once a year and ask them if they were ready to start working, and shove them right back in there for another year if they said no, then I might be okay with using it on people who can't support themselves and choose not to work ;-) (Obviously, being unable to work or unable to find work is a very different situation.)

I was on the phone with my grandma the other day. We don't normally connect very well conversationally, since our lives are so different. On this particular occasion, however, we re-discovered that we both believed in the importance of working until you dropped dead, and that nothing else mattered in life. I'm exaggerating a little bit, but only a little. It was great.

*I can't link to it because it was a friends-only post. Own up to your opinions, people!

What about working on something that doesn't pay, or at least not immediately? E.g., think of Knuth working on TeX. Not everyone can get a tenured university position.

I think that there's a benefit to providing some basic sustenance to everyone. Some people will use it as an excuse not to work, others as a safety net, and yet others as a way to work on things that aren't valuable yet. The question is what level of sustenance that should be.

Of course, this is not to say that the ability to live off society should be a *right* per se; I just think it's not a bad idea to provide a kind of a floor, and adjusting that floor upwards as overall productivity increases.

"What about working on something that doesn't pay, or at least not immediately?"

i think that's great, but that should be supported by a part-time job, savings, a supportive family, etc. otherwise, who gets to decide who's just bumming around and who's contributing to society in a non-monetary way?

"I think that there's a benefit to providing some basic sustenance to everyone. The question is what level of sustenance that should be."

certainly. i was being facetious with the whole hibernation thing (added a smiley to make that clearer). i personally believe the level of sustenance should be very low -- emergency medical treatment, enough food to live on, basic shelter, and that's pretty much it. certainly not enough sustenance to work on TeX.

to clarify further, i think it's quite possible that overall economic output will increase if you move toward a more communal approach than what i advocate. however, this comes at the expense of fairness, i.e, distributing the rewards of said output in proportion to effort. this fundamental tradeoff appears to be at the heart of the difference between the economic left and right. i myself consider fairness to be the more important goal, making me a libertarian.

I've been tending towards pragmatic libertarianism myself, which means that I value overall well-being of people more than the fairness principle. I.e., I like to encourage effort, but if an unfair redistribution creates positive externalities, I'm all for it.

It should also be said that the normal economic system rewards productivity, rather than effort. E.g., if you work really hard for a few years on your new project (name omitted since it was in a locked post), but no one uses it, you get no reward.

P.S. there's no point in hibernation, since in subjective time for the lazy bums, no time will have passed during the year, so they don't have much reason to change their mind. It actually makes more sense for those unable to find work—freeze them until a job turns up. :)

What is your take on government support for people who for either medical or psychological reasons cannot work? (I know a little bit about this program. Mostly that it is extremely difficult to get into and requires quite a lot of documentation.)

i support that (i did made an exception for inability to work in my post). the only thing i have a problem with is the combination of wanton laziness and living off of government hand-outs; i don't oppose either of those two things individually.

A friend of mine says he believes that people should have a right to a comfortable life even if they choose not to work

That's an, um, interesting, view point your friend has.

Even if you ignore the evolutionary precedent for selecting people who work harder, there's still the more pragmatic question of, who pays for the lazy people?

I don't find 'not working' morally reprehensible - if you have some slush fund filled up by a benefactor\relative\spouse\whatever then good for you - but certainly, they don't have a right to comfortable life.

the socialist viewpoint is that modern industrial society greatly overproduces (essential) goods, and so we can afford to support a significant bum population in the hope that one of them will turn out to be a picasso (or because of the view that people can "choose" to "reject capitalism," which in our times essentially means not working).

the argument is very seductive, but any country that embraces it will decidedly face economic ruin in the long run.

"if you have some slush fund filled up by a benefactor\relative\spouse\whatever then good for you"

i'm not saying that rich people should have regular jobs, but if you decide to spend your life drinking pina coladas in maui simply because you can, that seems like a waste of precious life to me. it's not in the same category as living off of other people's hard work, but i do find it morally offensive. i acknowledge that you might not, and that's cool.

Let me start by saying, I work. It's what I do. If I'm awake, I'm either on my way to work, working, or home exhausted from working, and when I have time off I'm working on making my life easier for the rest of the time when I work.

My job defines me, it's what I do. I get accused of being a workaholic, but I like what I do and take pride in doing well. I am annoyed when a coworker clearly doesn't like working, and I'm sad when people don't enjoy what they do.

I don't care about whether one is rich or not, I find work fulfilling, and I wish everyone could find work that fulfilled them.

I don't like people who feel 'entitled' -- I prefer to avoid them. Sure, we deserve a basic living standard, but to better onesself and step above the crowd - that's a prerogative I encourage.

Well, it might not be a complete misunderstanding. I suspect that we just slightly disagree on what constitutes minimum floor of comfort for a modest, dignified lifestyle. I've temporarily made that entry public, so that if you would like you can link to it and your readers can read it.

I totally agree with you. It's absurd to suggest that somehow some guy who decides not to work has the right to reach into my pocket and take the money that I made through my blood and sweat so that he can live a comfortable lifestyle. He'll have to find his own money, thank you very much.